Ramblings from Oz

Monday, July 28, 2008

"Irresponsible decisions" or not, those made by the Bush administration didn't have any effect on the economy, but that wouldn't stop some goon like Obama from shopping that central planning bullshit around for the saps who'll buy a line like that.

It's just another indication of the type of man he is, and the philosophy he believes in.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

21 Acres farm wants to create on a much grander scale when it breaks ground next year on an agricultural center with farm stalls, classrooms and test kitchens. The new addition could store 150,000 gallons of rain to irrigate dozens of adjacent garden plots, currently sucking up expensive city water.

There's just one problem.

It almost certainly would violate state water law. And if one wanted to be persnickety, so might the rain barrels cities encourage conservation-minded homeowners to buy.

"We're all promoting it, it's the right thing to do, it makes sense, but it's illegal," said Vince Carlson, a meadmaker and architect for 21 Acres. "Nobody says anything, and we're all kind of hush-hush about it."

I've long known about water rights, as they pertain to most western states' rights on controlling rivers and lakes, but...THE FUCKING RAIN?!? WTF? You've GOT to be shitting me.

I've got an idea for Vince, too, if he'll stop to think about the eventualities of what he's up against. I'm certain it's something that won't sit too well with him when push comes to shove on the matter, but he'd best just get used to it, because some governmental bureaubot has already read the damned story and is consulting with a "superior" and probably the relevant "legal" expert on how, exactly, they're going to, at the very minimum, tax your ass for the privelage of using a human necessity that falls freely from the sky.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The uselessness of the Heller decision

[D.C.'s] compliance seems to focus on imposing bureaucratic barriers in place of legal ones.

It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that they've essentially told the citizens of that city that the ban effectively stands, and that they'll have to register their firearms, submit to a battery of tests and keep the gun unloaded and disassembled. Lotta good that'll do ya when ya need it most.

The moment that Adrian Fenty, Cheif Lanier and their entire band of enablers are all put behind bars (that should be RIGHT FUCKING NOW!,btw), someone can wake me up. Otherwise, the reality of the situation stands just as it did before Heller, with the citizen arming himself at the risk of the goons beating his door down for "permission" to protect himself.

If this type of effrontery doesn't make people go into a towering fucking rage, we, that is the U.S., are going to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Count on it.

Update, 7/17: It now seems that the put-upon party surrounding the case and the ruling of the court was denied a permit for his handgun. That's right, Dick Heller, the plaintiff, who was supposedly the only party with "standing" in the appellate court ruling to make it to the hearing in front of the SCOTUS, and was confirmed by the majority, was denied, again, his constitutional rights due to his semi-automatic handgun being "banned" according to the newest regulations as set forth from the disgusting D.C. city council. It's the same as a machine gun, you see. Only revolvers for the proles, according to the asshats who deem themselves to be the gods.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Cultural relativism designs Bullshit stove

I'm curious about how this "unique cooking method" mentioned differs substantially from the way I do it on my electric range at home. I mean, I put some sort of food stuff in a pan or pot, and generally cook it by boiling water or direct searing with the surface of the hot pan.

Am I missing something?

Loved the bit about how the indoor air quality in third-world, uh, I mean, developing countries is extremely poor, and that this new stove (which operates similarly to a Franklin stove, so how new is it?) will prevent, "Indoor air pollution-related deaths claim(ing) the lives of 1.5 million people a year, mainly women and children."

Ah, the women and children red herring. I see. Well, if anyone is awake, they'd be able to reason the cause for this. Is it because the man of the family is a callous bastard, holding the woman's and children's heads over the hot stack of gases, choking their lungs with soot? No, the man of the house is usually not inside, but outside, tending to cattle or other grazers or plowing fields for wheat or corn or other staples. So, it stands to reason that he'd not be adversely affected since his proximity to the emissions concentrations is far greater. Duh.

Honestly, anyone who gives to, or works for these charities or Non-Profs just needs a good kick in the head.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

More of that Monopoly of Force Bullshit

So, some in this world would have the rest of us believe that the use of force should be restricted entirely to the dictates, proscriptions and whims of the government, including, but not limited to, the possession and use of firearms.

Newsflash

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

I'm one who's not likely to be in such a position as these poor folks who've been put upon in the story, but that hardly excludes me from the possibility of it happening, given what passes as "law enforcement" these days.

Of prime importance, for all concerned, with respect to my domicile is this, if anyone attempts to break down my doors, regardless of who they are, they're going to be met with a hail of hot lead, in a volume sufficient enough for reconsideration of their original motivations for doing so. It's a promise. Simply yelling, "We're the police, serving a warrant," isn't going to get you any further than if it were some crackhead looking for enough loot to hawk for his next hit, since it's a tactic being used both by the crooks, as well as those acting falsely under the color of law.

In my estimation these two groups are now indistinguishable, as someone entering any home under false pretenses is nothing more than a criminal, badge or not. So, if I shoot to kill, and it happens to be an officer of the law, supposedly acting within his jurisdiction and scope, I'm wondering if I can use the same, lame, "errors in judgement," excuse that this sorry sack of shit is tabling for his defense. Not likely.

Take notes, boys and girls. This incident is endemic of a society that is devolving, rapidly, with almost no hope of finding its moral bearing for getting out of the swirling maelstrom that is sucking us into the depths of depravity. And we are allowing it to happen.